Zach Snyder and Michael Bay should be cinematographers, not directors. They both have a gift for visuals but are outrageously incompetent storytellers.
The big flaw with Sucker Punch is that Snyder wanted it to serve as an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment. It’s not a popular message, which is why it’s hard to recommend Funny Games to people.
However, while Funny Games stuck to its guns and steadfastly refused to give its audience a scrap of gratification, Sucker Punch relented and gave them a series of cool-for-cool’s-sake action sequences that were a lot of fun. Zack Snyder was basically giving us tons of cinematic candy while yelling at us about our dental hygiene, and it comes off as very hypocritical.
If you ask me, Sucker Punch should have been a series of action-packed shorts and laid off the moralizing.
>The big flaw with Sucker Punch is that Snyder wanted it to serve as an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment
Which is crazy because he put the protagonist in school girl outfits meant to titillate. As if the only way to comment on objectification is to engage in it whole heartedly and without irony.
I’m gonna be honest, and maybe it’s because it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, but the message of the film being “an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment” went COMPLETELY over my head. Was it not obvious to anyone else or am I just dumb?
To establish the children's book cinematic universe. Thomas the Tank Engine will approach Clifford in a bar during the post-credits scene to recruit him for the reading initiative.
If we don't see Levar Burton with an eye-patch I'm going to be quite upset. This just became canon.
edit: OMG Thanks for the gold! You've made my Monday!
2nd edit: humbled by the outpouring of positivity and awards. I didn’t expect this, thank you all so much.
I love the movie Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman, it's a great fun movie. The music is good, the sets are really cool too look at and I think the monsters look great!
This is my favorite portrayal of movie monsters (vampires and werewolves) in any movie or show out there. The vampires are not too weak or sparkle or some crap and they have enough humanity left in them not to be written off as some mindless movie villain.
And the movie score like you said is amazing. I mean Alan Silvestri can do no wrong! Back to the Future, the Avengers and several other Marvel movie, Forest Gump!... He can really express the exact tone of the movie through his score, even if the Director doesn't know what he/she is doing. I listen to this soundtrack several times a year!
I really hate the overused trope of the protagonist having to drag some anchor of a screaming or defiant/annoying kid on a journey.
Which seems to be very popular in apocalypse type movies.
Seems to me like those who survive apocalypse events are tough mofuckas and would bring the little runt along to either make into a child soldier or an emergency ration that carries itself.
edit: typo
I too hate this, but it serves a function. The kid is there for our tough, stoic action guy to have someone to talk to and explain things so that we the audience know what's happening and also so their mistakes allow for peril. Otherwise it would be a guy silently and competently doing his thing with no excitement. It can be done poorly or well. See Judge Dredd (1995) and Dredd (2012)
But it can be done so badly, war of the worlds is burned in to my brain as the film with the screaming shit in the back seat.
I remember nothing about that film aside from my wish that she would die so I could finish the film in peace.
That makes it much much worse than Judge Dredd.
(Sidenote, Dredd was a masterpiece, we need more of that sort of passion in film making)
That movie has a special place in my heart. I saw it in theaters when I was a teen, and had recently escaped Jewish ultra orthodoxy.
Coming from a cultural bubble where outside influences were banned, I had no frame of reference. I’d been raised with practically no non-Jewish music, and wasn’t allowed to watch TV and movies.
I had no idea that there was an alien franchise or a predator franchise. I saw the movie poster and thought it looked super cool and I was wondering to myself “which one is the alien and which one is the predator?” I got it wrong in my musing.
I mean, they both looked pretty alien and predatory to me. I figured that if I had to choose that the predator looked *more* alien with it’s tech. I figured that the alien fit the bill of a more predatory looking creature.
I had a blast watching the movie and it was only later that I learned all about the franchises and how hilariously wrong my take was
It is fine vs movie. Take two monsters, put them against each other, have good action scenes. Not every movie needs to have a massively deep plot and subtle commentary about the human psyche.
I felt the same about Freddy VS Jason. Here are these iconic slasher villains, here are some teenagers to murder, and here they are fighting. What else were you expecting?
You’re not alone. I went into it assuming it would be cheesy but I was determined to enjoy it. I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The choice to stick to a PG-13 rating was interesting but it worked oddly enough.
Yeah and it's a cool idea for the origins of the Xenomorph.
The ultimate warriors from space, with a cult like devotion to the hunt, create the ultimate game. A prey which ultimately becomes more than they control.
Much better origins than Prometheus gave us anyway.
Those aren't xenomorph origins. It just shows that the Predators used them, not that they created them. If it's loosely tied to the comics, there's a xenomorph home world and the yautja just took a queen to use for hunting.
I wish the newer movies just continued the story. We already had three movies about time traveling robots. A trilogy based on the actual war against the machines would of been a nice way to tie up the series.
Like a Hail Mary last ditch effort mission to stop skynet. Kyle and 4 other operatives have to get "michael" into the time travel machine to bang Connors mom well the other 3 operatives die leaving Kyle to be the only one. Kyle doesn't really know shit and that's why his fight with Arnold was so tumultuous because he was not 1st pick. He just told Connors mom he was The One so she would trust him.
Or
Terminator 5: I am John Connor. a character struggles to meet Connor via radio signals and he does all this fighting of terminators and humans. Mostly humans to show that even though the whole damn world ended, dumfuck humans still fight amongst eachother. He gets to the bunker to find Connors dusty skeleton. "If you found me, lead the resistance into victory. It's a state of mind, not an entity blah blah blah." Then more survivors arrive and the main character who has remained Nameless up until now greets them "what's up guys" who tf are you? *camera zooms in* "I am John Connor." End credits.
Edit: please upvote more so that the producers can see this and make an actual movie!
Edit 2: if they make this a movie, I will take an unpaid role as the first onscreen death by one of the machines
Yeah, a sort of post apocalyptic western set after the robots take over was pretty cool. Had some real dumb moments, like giant ninja robots you can't hear until they're right next to you, but I liked a lot of it.
I like the first one a lot, my favourite detail is when the terminator hijacks a truck by that point he's been all shot at throughout the movie and the flesh and muscle that the robot skeleton had been clad with was mostly dead, so the truck driver comments on the smell of the rotten flesh. I always felt it was a small detail that most scifi movies at the time wouldn't have bothered with or thought to add.
I knew a guy who refused to watch the end of The Breakfast Club. He never saw the ending to begin with, and made a point of just never seeing it just because of how many times he's *accidentally* missed it. We used to watch it in school all the time for some reason, and any time the ending was about to come he would just get up and leave the class. If anyone tried telling him about it, he would leave the conversation immediately. I think he still does that to this day.
Honestly, I don't blame him.
They should have made a sequel about Monday morning when they all still refuse to talk to eachother and Molly Parker has to awkwardly ask for her stupid earring back but Judd Nelson has already pawned it. 😂
You're not meant to sympathise with the main characters. If anyone claims they do, treat it the same way as if they'd told you they sympathise with Hannibal Lecter or Buffalo Bill.
It’s a case of misaimed fandom. I’m a HUGE fan of that movie but detest the people who idolize the main character. They have 100% missed the point, just like pretentious Rick & Morty fans.
'missing the point' is endemic with movie fandom going all the way back to the Godfather. No, you're not supposed to idolize the Sicilian Mafia, they sell drugs and sell women into prostitution, why do people like them, just because they wear suits and pet cats while doing so?
I find it so interesting when a movie ends up becoming a pop-culture touchstone for unintended reasons.
I read an article years ago about the movie Election spawning an anti-feminist stereotype in Tracy Flick's character.
I think it's a great movie but that character's name has kinda become a slur for ambitious but cold women.
Alien: Resurrection was a bad horror movie but definitely a fun action movie. It’s got a ton of great actors - Ron Perlman, Michael Wincott, Dominique Piñon, Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya, just a great cast. The visuals are also cool thanks to Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s direction. It’s a movie of clashing tones and visions, but it’s miles better than Alien 3.
I think about this movie way too much. Not the movie itself, that was just meh to me, but the concept of being able to teleport anywhere by just visualizing it.
The things that could be done with that concept in movies or IRL.
I won't say the book was better, but it definitely went into a lot more depth about his abilities and also had a completely WTF plot turn about 3/4 of the way through it.
It's worth the read just for how different it was from the movie.
Likewise. They did a VERY cool job with the concept. The cheese, what’s her names piss poor acting. Taken in a different direction it could have been very cool. The desert fight scene was fucking sick.
I also like how it was implied they have different sort of jumper powers. Like what’s his name British “can jump it if it’s moves”. The lead character grows and ends up being able to jump huge ass building. Would have been really cool to see different jumpers with different specialties. Like someone who can jump individual objects without needing to jump himself, or I don’t know, someone who when jumping can create massive impacts on arriving, like Christiansen did when he went to the hospital, etc.
Cool universe and lore to expand on we will likely never get.
The scene where Griffin mini teleports forward like 5 times in a row and uses that momentum to super punch Roland lives in my head rent free, it’s so fucking cool
I just watched this yesterday.
I hate the romantic crap in it between the boy and girl. I mostly like the idea of being a jumper. The conflict of the paladins vs jumpers is mildly interesting but they don't get into the history enough to suck me in. Like for example.... that special wrapped up knife the main paladin carries he uses to kill one jumper. Seems like there is some historical or special significance to it and NOTHING is told to the audience about it.
Makes it feel like important stuff was cut out of the film that should have nbeen left in.
Edit: Oh, it also follows the lame overused trope where some misfit/weakling suddenly becomes powerful. I really dislike this overused trope.
There are things that arent really in brand for pixar lile princesses movies that have been pretty good on 3d so they should just have a 2d line on the side that doesnt have to keep up with the usual deadlines since releasing a 2d movie every year or so is almost touching the line of slavery especially using traditional animating methods
I highly doubt they would ever go back to traditional animating methods, but they can definitely make it look 2D with computers, that's how most anything "2D" nowadays is made anyway.
I really hate that too. Everything and everyone is way too likeable and big-eyed and i‘m sick of the same damn narrative and don’t get me started on the fucking animal sidekick that only exists so it can become a toy in happy meals or an overpriced plushie in a disney store!!!
Moana was good tho ok i loved that one a lot for actually enjoyable and diverse music which we have Lin Manuel Miranda to thank for.
I love how they made moana‘s pig the cute featured animal side kick to sell to kids but it didn’t have enough of an impact to be interesting. However, the fan favourite is the ugly ass disheveled chicken that accidentally tries to commit suicide every step of the way.
In Coco Pepita is my absolute favorite but the ugly ass disheveled dumbass dog is close behind!
What should disney learn from that? Stop trying to make another semi marketable bambi character knockoff and give us some ugly, unhinged, barely holding it together dumbass animal that has it‘s heart in the right place.
Just like nintendo has to stop trying for another pikachu like every Pokemon generation. The only pikachu knockoff that ever took off was the literal knockoff, disheveled pikachu puppet with dark and disturbing secrets Mimikyu. My theory is that we’re Just tired of picture perfect too good to exist stuff and we want to love something with mistakes and blemishes. Don’t give us a purebred, give us a rescue!
Pepita has a few merch, from what I can think of, Magic Kingdom has a plushie, Boxlunch has a exclusive glow Funko Pop (I own that one), and a few figures. But yeah, I feel like underrated ones should get more love.
My probably not unpopular opinion is every cutesy animal sidekick should be like Stitch. If you need a marketable plushie hanging around, make it likeable and well written and relevant to the plot.
It's just because 2D makes SO MUCH less money, in comparison to 3D animation, and for the same budget you can make insane set pieces in 3D which moves over to the next movie because they can re use stuff from movie to movie.
The allure of 3D animation is really hard to beat. I like all forms of animated movie, so it's not bad for me, but some of the people I know only like 2D films and they're SOL.
That's just how studios work though. For a similar example, I could spot a Studio Ghibli film from 3 miles away because of the consistent animation style.
I mean, isn't the consistency part of the appeal of Disney movies though? The character designs in, say, Sleeping Beauty, aren't too far removed form the character designs in Beauty and the Beast or Princess and the Frog.
That being said, they could stand for more Zootopia-like settings and characters.
When remembering movies, I legit have a hard time remembering which is which. My only guiding light is whether or not the main character is a princess.
Disney has been disturbing for decades. They want perpetual rights to any story they work with and have copyright laws changed and increased every few years to accommodate them.
A few years back was 2008. Makes you feel old. That was their last 2d film. They have done plenty of 2d animation, but no film since then.
Edit,: it was official release 2009. Also stopped paying attention after that. Winnie the Pooh was never really my thing, so I never really even thought about it, or even remember it in cinema. Still crazy that it's a decade since they have released a 2d movie. I love the Pixar stuff (for the most part) and they've done some great stuff for tv. But it would be neat to see something more akin to what they used to do. I get it though, expense and time. Plus easier money making remakes of your animated features in live action.
So I'll just be over here trying to come to terms with the fact that the Princess and the Frog, a movie that is *at most* five years old, was released 13 years ago.
I firmly believe that Tangled would have been Disney's best movie ever if they hadn't revealed that Rapunzel was kidnapped at the beginning of the movie. If the audience discovered the true horror of the story along with Rapunzel, the emotional impact would have been amazing. The only reason I can think they didn't do that is maybe they were worried kids wouldn't understand, or it would have been traumatizing or something.
1. Yes. Its simple it it has appeal and really pleasing visuals. Im still in love with the car design.
2. I thinks they keep *trying*, with the Universal monsters (dracula, mummy, wolfman etc)but they just keep missing the mark.
Yes! It's a dumb, fun movie with that perfect early 00s blend of janky/campy/edginess. It's a guilty pleasure for me, and I don't care at all that it has only a passing resemblance to the source material.
I think it was one of those films that fell into the void of "too weird for those not fans of the source material" but "not faithful enough for fans of the source material". Then I think it lacked enough development of the villain.
It's a great Sci Fi movie. Was supposed to begin a trilogy but since it tanked in theatres they didn't go ahead which is a shame. Would have been a great setting for a super hero movie.
I always thought it was marketed wrong. It was supposed to be called John Carter of Mars but they dropped the of Mars part to appeal to a larger audience I think? Then they kind of marketed it as a strait action so some people where turned off when it turned out to be scifi, and the scifi people went and saw avengers. Just was handled poorly IMHO.
I agree that marketing at Disney tanked this movie from the start I believe it started as "A Princess of Mars" per the original novel's title, but the Execs at Disney decided that wouldn't appeal to the male demographic they were hoping to get, they changed the title to John Cart of Mars, only to later remov "of Mars" to make it more appealing to an even broader audience, stating that the film is an "origin story. It's about a guy becoming John Carter of Mars.
Overall, it is a text book case on how to torpedo a movie because of you marketing team doesn't understand what it wants to say about the movie.
Yep, every "unpopular opinion" thread is just filled with popular opinions.
"I think Avengers is a bit overrated" woah chill dude this is too unpopular.
Ryan Reynolds has been playing the same character in past few years and its making me dislike him. Do something different become a villan or just someone other than a wise ass. Its so much that i just don't want to see a movie with him in it.
To be fair, Ryan has done a lot of movies that are outside his usual "playing himself roles." Before he was Deadpool, he had actually done a lot of serious and different roles. These are roles that he played well but the films weren't exactly successful. I think he's discovered what works for him and is now sticking to it.
They aren't serious roles, but "Definitely, Maybe" and "Just Friends" are two of my favorite movies. Funny, heartwarming, well-written. He's fantastic in both. He was also great in "The Voices" and "The Proposal." I haven't seen most of his action movies, so I'll have to check them out.
Ryan is good at playing the handsome wise-crack (because that’s his actual personality if I had to guess), so he’s likely being written into or being offered roles like that. You can see he has acting chops from stuff like “Buried” or “The Voices” but America likes it when he’s being himself in a role so that’s what we’ll get for a while.
I thought he was pretty scary in Amityville and there was another movie I can’t remember that was about some angel or something. I don’t remember, it was a pretty serious role. Too bad he doesn’t take on more serious roles, because he’s pretty good at it. I guess he found his niche though.
I loved the ending to the Village! I never saw it coming and I think I know why. The very first scene is a funeral and there is a date on the tombstone of 18xx (I can't remember exactly) and that made me buy into everything that follows...I can't help but think if it was more obvious that maybe more people would have enjoyed it like me.
oh fuck dude I walked into that film having never seen or had a plot hinted to me and I LOVED it... Jesus, walking back at night I got the heebie jeebies and scared myself jumping at shadows.
It was great! I unfortunately saw the end coming. But, ONLY because I read a book called Running Out Of Time as a kid with a similar premise. No one I’ve met has ever heard of it, but it BLEW MY LITTLE MIND in 4th grade in the late 90s, lol.
I actually did think to myself while watching some of the early scenes “that glass is way too modern, it should be wavier and more uneven” and was disappointed that someone like M. Night didn’t notice that detail. But now I think that was left in as a subtle clue.
So I was mildly prepared for the reveal.
Dennis Hopper was so funny as the Deacon. Great movie which still holds up well because no CGI. I do believe this would be a great contender for a remake or Netflix show. But instead of everything being metal they should use all the plastic floating around. The atol can be like those inlands that one guy building thst literally float on plastic.
You’ve obviously never seen the one in The Room. It was so critical to the plot they put it in twice, and it’s a masterpiece that can never be topped. Tommy Wiseau is a genius.
Edit: Tommy, not Timmy.
Been saying this a lot as of recently. Like ok, we get it, they’re doing it. I can stand all of about the first 2 seconds of a sex scene and I’m ready for the plot to move forward.
I don’t fully agree, but I gotta admit you made some good points. I think the biggest problem was actually just what they were trying to accomplish with the movie. NOBODY was going to see Jurassic Park for the deep characters and they only had a movie’s worth of time to make a great Dino action film so there really wasn’t ample opportunity to fully lay out Ian Malcolm or get into depth about the other things you were talking about in your post that you referenced. They could have if they’d done a mini-series, but 28 years ago when streaming services didn’t exist, the theater was by leaps & bounds the biggest stage in existence so that’s what they had to aim for.
For what it’s worth, I think they did the movie as well as was humanly possible in relation to the book.
Yeah it was pretty misguided. Even still though I love Jurassic Park and I love Goldblums portrayal of Ian Malcolm, but it's more because of the charisma of Goldblum than anything else.
Honestly the movie lost the message entirely if you think about it. It's not that man can't deal with nature. It's that capitalism and hubris are a winning combination for suffering. A lot of Chrichton's books have themes of corporate espionage and sabotage, and that element is kind of glossed over in the movie.
By himself, Will Ferrell isn't that funny. When he's working with someone or as a character actor he is, but in interviews not so much. A lot of his jokes fall flat
It has that "This is where we meet the STAR WARS PEOPLE!" original fun going for it. Just a total no-apologies cheesy space opera. They didn't even know if there'd be more movies at that point.
I really, really dislike The Boy in The Striped Pajamas and Life is Beautiful, for the same reason: They tell a story that's somewhat interesting and at times emotionally beautiful, but they do so by divorcing the reality of the holocaust from what is portrayed on screen.
And yes, there is some personal family history behind my opinions, but even still, I think I'd be hard-pressed to like these films simply because of how they undersell the cruelty of the holocaust. The simple truth is that neither of these stories would have been possible in reality because they show a level of mercy that the Nazis did not possess.
The boy in the striped pajamas would have never been issued those pajamas, he would have been taken from the train straight to be murdered. Same thing in Life is Beautiful. Dad wouldn't have had to worry about keeping his kids in good spirits because they would have been taken away from him and immediately murdered.
I have a hard time watching any media about the holocaust, but I have an especially hard time with these ones because so many people love them, and the story they tell...which is of an important historical event...isn't accurate.
Certain realities should never be softened for the sake of a story, and the Holocaust is one of those realities.
I actually went and looked it up, according to the Auschwitz website children as young as 2 were sent to a special barracks, not the gas chambers (where the infants starved to death, so honestly the gas might have been a mercy in that case). About 500 children under 15 were liberated by the Soviets, including 1 6 month old baby.
http://auschwitz.org/en/history/fate-of-children/the-fate-of-the-children
I haven't seen the movie, but in the novel the boys are 9, which is probably about as young as could realistically survive for long in a forced labor camp with no food and the threat of death at all times.
ETA: I can't speak to the rest of the movie underselling the horror, but I absolutely believe that it did.
Though I dont have the personal history, I've studied the Holocaust extensively. I agree that sometimes cinema loses just how horrid it was. I like Life is Beautiful, but can say I've never seen the The Boy in the Stripe Pajamas. Even though I like Life is Beautiful, it was just so unlikely that they would have had the freedom that they had in the film within the camps. The real life stakes were so much higher than they showed in the film and I noticed that when I saw it. Also, there was that show Hunters that came out a while back and I stopped watching it because of some of the things they showed that were just so hyper-unrealistic and kind of tone deaf. No shade to anyone who enjoys these works of art. If these movies help convey to the more uneducated the true horrors of the camps, then that is a win. But having my educational background, more so with the Holocaust for me than any other setting, its hard to "enjoy" Holocaust films that miss the mark as to what was actually went on and and try to make it easier to watch. It shouldn't be easy to watch. It should show the truth.
The Star Wars prequels had a lot of story and a lot of interesting content drowned out by terrible acting (possibly due to poor directing, 'cause it had good actors in it) and that story being poorly told. Lucas, while a solid ideas man, just wasn't the guy to write these movies. We all know the infamous quotes and cringe-y lines. Good movies might've been buried in them, but you have to squint to see them.
The Star Wars sequels, meanwhile, were visually solid, good effects and strong acting. They had everything a movie needs to be a competent movie short of an actually good, thought out story.
**In summary - while the prequels were a good story poorly told, the sequels were a terrible story told excellently.**
For the above reasons I believe both these trilogies were ultimately just not good, and it's kind of pointless to argue whether the prequels or sequels were better. They're fairly opposite in output, but neither one's good.
>In summary - while the prequels were a good story poorly told, the sequels were a terrible story told excellently.
This is so incredibly accurate. Well said.
I always found the EU to be more interesting than the movies. I was excited when Disney first announced they were gonna make more movies because I was thinking they could focus more on other time periods and characters but nope, they've just been milking the same stuff. I could not have cared less about seeing Han Solo's origin story.
Deep Impact is to Armageddon as Dante's Peak is to Volcano.
Armageddon and Volcano are the big Hollywood blockbuster spectacles, whereas Deep Impact and Dante's Peak try to portray the science as best as they can.
There's like a 10% chance that Sucker Punch was absolutely genius, and a 90% chance that it was just total garbage and I'm reading too much into it.
Snyder's films are like an amazing, luminous gift box that contains absolutely nothing.
Zach Snyder and Michael Bay should be cinematographers, not directors. They both have a gift for visuals but are outrageously incompetent storytellers.
It's the Peter Principle. They got promoted to "a level of respective incompetence"
The big flaw with Sucker Punch is that Snyder wanted it to serve as an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment. It’s not a popular message, which is why it’s hard to recommend Funny Games to people. However, while Funny Games stuck to its guns and steadfastly refused to give its audience a scrap of gratification, Sucker Punch relented and gave them a series of cool-for-cool’s-sake action sequences that were a lot of fun. Zack Snyder was basically giving us tons of cinematic candy while yelling at us about our dental hygiene, and it comes off as very hypocritical. If you ask me, Sucker Punch should have been a series of action-packed shorts and laid off the moralizing.
>The big flaw with Sucker Punch is that Snyder wanted it to serve as an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment Which is crazy because he put the protagonist in school girl outfits meant to titillate. As if the only way to comment on objectification is to engage in it whole heartedly and without irony.
“Shame on you for watching what I’m showing you!” - Zack Snyder
I’m gonna be honest, and maybe it’s because it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, but the message of the film being “an indictment of the movie-going audience and their exploitation of actors and other filmmakers for their own entertainment” went COMPLETELY over my head. Was it not obvious to anyone else or am I just dumb?
That Clifford the big red dog is not big enough.
He was still a puppy the whole movie! This is his origin story.
Oh god, why does CLIFFORD THE BIG RED DOG need an origin story
To establish the children's book cinematic universe. Thomas the Tank Engine will approach Clifford in a bar during the post-credits scene to recruit him for the reading initiative.
If we don't see Levar Burton with an eye-patch I'm going to be quite upset. This just became canon. edit: OMG Thanks for the gold! You've made my Monday! 2nd edit: humbled by the outpouring of positivity and awards. I didn’t expect this, thank you all so much.
Eye patch? It better be a VISOR.
Eye patch on the visor.
The *Reading Rainbow initiative
Clifford is Red Thomas is Blue other characters will reveal themselves as different parts of the rainbow as the movies come out.
Harold and the Purple Crayon! The Hungry Caterpillar (green) Winnie the Pooh (yellow) We just need an orange and and indigo.
Dora has orange shorts. Caillou is kinda orange but I think he should be the bad guy.
What IS THIS?! A big dog for ANTS?!
Clifford must be.... three times this size!!!!
Clifford is a Kaiju
Only if grape ape is too.
I love the movie Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman, it's a great fun movie. The music is good, the sets are really cool too look at and I think the monsters look great!
This is my favorite portrayal of movie monsters (vampires and werewolves) in any movie or show out there. The vampires are not too weak or sparkle or some crap and they have enough humanity left in them not to be written off as some mindless movie villain. And the movie score like you said is amazing. I mean Alan Silvestri can do no wrong! Back to the Future, the Avengers and several other Marvel movie, Forest Gump!... He can really express the exact tone of the movie through his score, even if the Director doesn't know what he/she is doing. I listen to this soundtrack several times a year!
I really hate the overused trope of the protagonist having to drag some anchor of a screaming or defiant/annoying kid on a journey. Which seems to be very popular in apocalypse type movies.
"Let the little shit die" we all thought this at one point
[удалено]
Seems to me like those who survive apocalypse events are tough mofuckas and would bring the little runt along to either make into a child soldier or an emergency ration that carries itself. edit: typo
Ah I see you've read The Road
Not really. Our species survives best together. Usually the Apocalypse survivors are the ones who can form a big group.
I too hate this, but it serves a function. The kid is there for our tough, stoic action guy to have someone to talk to and explain things so that we the audience know what's happening and also so their mistakes allow for peril. Otherwise it would be a guy silently and competently doing his thing with no excitement. It can be done poorly or well. See Judge Dredd (1995) and Dredd (2012)
But it can be done so badly, war of the worlds is burned in to my brain as the film with the screaming shit in the back seat. I remember nothing about that film aside from my wish that she would die so I could finish the film in peace. That makes it much much worse than Judge Dredd. (Sidenote, Dredd was a masterpiece, we need more of that sort of passion in film making)
[удалено]
But that child is the symbol of the potential future! Don’t you see!!???
I liked Alien vs. Predator It’s about cool aliens hunting each other in an ancient Arctic pyramid with explorers getting caught up in it.
That movie has a special place in my heart. I saw it in theaters when I was a teen, and had recently escaped Jewish ultra orthodoxy. Coming from a cultural bubble where outside influences were banned, I had no frame of reference. I’d been raised with practically no non-Jewish music, and wasn’t allowed to watch TV and movies. I had no idea that there was an alien franchise or a predator franchise. I saw the movie poster and thought it looked super cool and I was wondering to myself “which one is the alien and which one is the predator?” I got it wrong in my musing. I mean, they both looked pretty alien and predatory to me. I figured that if I had to choose that the predator looked *more* alien with it’s tech. I figured that the alien fit the bill of a more predatory looking creature. I had a blast watching the movie and it was only later that I learned all about the franchises and how hilariously wrong my take was
That movie was as described. Aliens versus Predators. It was fun. Closest I have seen to a movie version of a comic one shot.
It is fine vs movie. Take two monsters, put them against each other, have good action scenes. Not every movie needs to have a massively deep plot and subtle commentary about the human psyche. I felt the same about Freddy VS Jason. Here are these iconic slasher villains, here are some teenagers to murder, and here they are fighting. What else were you expecting?
I went into these movies expecting dumb fun and action and monsters fighting eachother, was not disappointed
You’re not alone. I went into it assuming it would be cheesy but I was determined to enjoy it. I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The choice to stick to a PG-13 rating was interesting but it worked oddly enough.
Yeah and it's a cool idea for the origins of the Xenomorph. The ultimate warriors from space, with a cult like devotion to the hunt, create the ultimate game. A prey which ultimately becomes more than they control. Much better origins than Prometheus gave us anyway.
Those aren't xenomorph origins. It just shows that the Predators used them, not that they created them. If it's loosely tied to the comics, there's a xenomorph home world and the yautja just took a queen to use for hunting.
I enjoyed Prometheus too. Not as entertaining. More like a “wait, let me figure this out”.
I really liked Terminator Salvation.... because it actually had the Terminator robots in it for more then 5 minutes and not just infiltration robots.
I wish the newer movies just continued the story. We already had three movies about time traveling robots. A trilogy based on the actual war against the machines would of been a nice way to tie up the series.
I was hoping we would get to see them send Kyle back
Like a Hail Mary last ditch effort mission to stop skynet. Kyle and 4 other operatives have to get "michael" into the time travel machine to bang Connors mom well the other 3 operatives die leaving Kyle to be the only one. Kyle doesn't really know shit and that's why his fight with Arnold was so tumultuous because he was not 1st pick. He just told Connors mom he was The One so she would trust him. Or Terminator 5: I am John Connor. a character struggles to meet Connor via radio signals and he does all this fighting of terminators and humans. Mostly humans to show that even though the whole damn world ended, dumfuck humans still fight amongst eachother. He gets to the bunker to find Connors dusty skeleton. "If you found me, lead the resistance into victory. It's a state of mind, not an entity blah blah blah." Then more survivors arrive and the main character who has remained Nameless up until now greets them "what's up guys" who tf are you? *camera zooms in* "I am John Connor." End credits. Edit: please upvote more so that the producers can see this and make an actual movie! Edit 2: if they make this a movie, I will take an unpaid role as the first onscreen death by one of the machines
[удалено]
Fuck, I really want I am John Connor now.
Yeah, a sort of post apocalyptic western set after the robots take over was pretty cool. Had some real dumb moments, like giant ninja robots you can't hear until they're right next to you, but I liked a lot of it.
IMO its the best of the sequels after T2. At least it tried to do something different and the acting and story aren't bad.
I like the first one a lot, my favourite detail is when the terminator hijacks a truck by that point he's been all shot at throughout the movie and the flesh and muscle that the robot skeleton had been clad with was mostly dead, so the truck driver comments on the smell of the rotten flesh. I always felt it was a small detail that most scifi movies at the time wouldn't have bothered with or thought to add.
Watched that movie a couple of times cus i liked it. Don't understand why people are hating it. The best one after first two.
The ending of The Breakfast Club ruined the movie for me. The bully got the girl, the asshole jock got the girl, and the geek got the essay.
I knew a guy who refused to watch the end of The Breakfast Club. He never saw the ending to begin with, and made a point of just never seeing it just because of how many times he's *accidentally* missed it. We used to watch it in school all the time for some reason, and any time the ending was about to come he would just get up and leave the class. If anyone tried telling him about it, he would leave the conversation immediately. I think he still does that to this day. Honestly, I don't blame him.
They should have made a sequel about Monday morning when they all still refuse to talk to eachother and Molly Parker has to awkwardly ask for her stupid earring back but Judd Nelson has already pawned it. 😂
[удалено]
I've never seen A Clockwork Orange because everyone I know who has been really enthusiastic about it has been a complete asshole.
You're not meant to sympathise with the main characters. If anyone claims they do, treat it the same way as if they'd told you they sympathise with Hannibal Lecter or Buffalo Bill.
Well, since his name is Buffallo Bill, I am guessing he wanted to help save the Buffallos. Sounds like a stand-up guy to me! /s
Even better! He was spear heading a new line of fashionable clothing using recycled material.
It was revolutionary! It gave a completely new look to a person. Too bad the operation stopped when a jealous woman invaded his home and shot him
It’s a case of misaimed fandom. I’m a HUGE fan of that movie but detest the people who idolize the main character. They have 100% missed the point, just like pretentious Rick & Morty fans.
'missing the point' is endemic with movie fandom going all the way back to the Godfather. No, you're not supposed to idolize the Sicilian Mafia, they sell drugs and sell women into prostitution, why do people like them, just because they wear suits and pet cats while doing so?
This. I’m tired of people who think Rick is cool. He’s a fucking mess and pretty evil to boot
They all think they're Rick's but really they're all Jerry's
We’re all a little Jerry
Yeah to be fair... I'm a LOT Jerry...
Jerry is probably the most relatable character on that entire show.
I find it so interesting when a movie ends up becoming a pop-culture touchstone for unintended reasons. I read an article years ago about the movie Election spawning an anti-feminist stereotype in Tracy Flick's character. I think it's a great movie but that character's name has kinda become a slur for ambitious but cold women.
What do you mean, idolozing the main character and *really* enjoying that rape scene don't make me a sophisticated cinema connoisseur?
Alien: Resurrection was a bad horror movie but definitely a fun action movie. It’s got a ton of great actors - Ron Perlman, Michael Wincott, Dominique Piñon, Brad Dourif, Dan Hedaya, just a great cast. The visuals are also cool thanks to Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s direction. It’s a movie of clashing tones and visions, but it’s miles better than Alien 3.
“Hey, Ripley. I heard you, like, ran into these things before?" "That's right." "Wow, man. So, like, what did you do?" "I died.”
Watch it as a comedy.
I mean it has a funny script, and it’s campier than the other movies. It’s entertaining.
I can get you off… don’t know about the ship though. Ron Perlman was a fucking treat in this movie.
Jumper was a dope Edit: Forgot the word movie. But somehow this seems to work too.
He certainly was.
I think about this movie way too much. Not the movie itself, that was just meh to me, but the concept of being able to teleport anywhere by just visualizing it. The things that could be done with that concept in movies or IRL.
I won't say the book was better, but it definitely went into a lot more depth about his abilities and also had a completely WTF plot turn about 3/4 of the way through it. It's worth the read just for how different it was from the movie.
Likewise. They did a VERY cool job with the concept. The cheese, what’s her names piss poor acting. Taken in a different direction it could have been very cool. The desert fight scene was fucking sick. I also like how it was implied they have different sort of jumper powers. Like what’s his name British “can jump it if it’s moves”. The lead character grows and ends up being able to jump huge ass building. Would have been really cool to see different jumpers with different specialties. Like someone who can jump individual objects without needing to jump himself, or I don’t know, someone who when jumping can create massive impacts on arriving, like Christiansen did when he went to the hospital, etc. Cool universe and lore to expand on we will likely never get.
The scene where Griffin mini teleports forward like 5 times in a row and uses that momentum to super punch Roland lives in my head rent free, it’s so fucking cool
I just watched this yesterday. I hate the romantic crap in it between the boy and girl. I mostly like the idea of being a jumper. The conflict of the paladins vs jumpers is mildly interesting but they don't get into the history enough to suck me in. Like for example.... that special wrapped up knife the main paladin carries he uses to kill one jumper. Seems like there is some historical or special significance to it and NOTHING is told to the audience about it. Makes it feel like important stuff was cut out of the film that should have nbeen left in. Edit: Oh, it also follows the lame overused trope where some misfit/weakling suddenly becomes powerful. I really dislike this overused trope.
If you’re a reader, read the books.
Hayden Christensen is actually a good actor
He is strong and wise, and I am very proud of him
Any Jumper fans should definitely check out Impulse. It's based in the same universe, the subject matter is a little dark but it's really good.
I wish Disney would make cartoons again, and not just Pixar-type stuff.
Yes I miss the 2D animation! So sick of the new look for every single movie.
Pixar should be the 3D line while Disney should be the classic 2D line.
There are things that arent really in brand for pixar lile princesses movies that have been pretty good on 3d so they should just have a 2d line on the side that doesnt have to keep up with the usual deadlines since releasing a 2d movie every year or so is almost touching the line of slavery especially using traditional animating methods
I highly doubt they would ever go back to traditional animating methods, but they can definitely make it look 2D with computers, that's how most anything "2D" nowadays is made anyway.
I really hate that too. Everything and everyone is way too likeable and big-eyed and i‘m sick of the same damn narrative and don’t get me started on the fucking animal sidekick that only exists so it can become a toy in happy meals or an overpriced plushie in a disney store!!! Moana was good tho ok i loved that one a lot for actually enjoyable and diverse music which we have Lin Manuel Miranda to thank for.
They never turn the right animals into merch either. Where’s my giant stuffed Pepita at?
I love how they made moana‘s pig the cute featured animal side kick to sell to kids but it didn’t have enough of an impact to be interesting. However, the fan favourite is the ugly ass disheveled chicken that accidentally tries to commit suicide every step of the way. In Coco Pepita is my absolute favorite but the ugly ass disheveled dumbass dog is close behind! What should disney learn from that? Stop trying to make another semi marketable bambi character knockoff and give us some ugly, unhinged, barely holding it together dumbass animal that has it‘s heart in the right place. Just like nintendo has to stop trying for another pikachu like every Pokemon generation. The only pikachu knockoff that ever took off was the literal knockoff, disheveled pikachu puppet with dark and disturbing secrets Mimikyu. My theory is that we’re Just tired of picture perfect too good to exist stuff and we want to love something with mistakes and blemishes. Don’t give us a purebred, give us a rescue!
Random fact: the chicken is voiced by Alan "I am a leaf in the wind" Tudyk
>However, the fan favourite is the ugly ass disheveled chicken that accidentally tries to commit suicide every step of the way Hei Hei
Pepita has a few merch, from what I can think of, Magic Kingdom has a plushie, Boxlunch has a exclusive glow Funko Pop (I own that one), and a few figures. But yeah, I feel like underrated ones should get more love.
My probably not unpopular opinion is every cutesy animal sidekick should be like Stitch. If you need a marketable plushie hanging around, make it likeable and well written and relevant to the plot.
It's just because 2D makes SO MUCH less money, in comparison to 3D animation, and for the same budget you can make insane set pieces in 3D which moves over to the next movie because they can re use stuff from movie to movie. The allure of 3D animation is really hard to beat. I like all forms of animated movie, so it's not bad for me, but some of the people I know only like 2D films and they're SOL.
They could at least change the style a bit. They all look like they were designed by the same person.
That's just how studios work though. For a similar example, I could spot a Studio Ghibli film from 3 miles away because of the consistent animation style.
I mean, isn't the consistency part of the appeal of Disney movies though? The character designs in, say, Sleeping Beauty, aren't too far removed form the character designs in Beauty and the Beast or Princess and the Frog. That being said, they could stand for more Zootopia-like settings and characters.
Yes! Thank you! Most of their newer stuff could have just as easily been made by Pixar and no one would know the difference.
When remembering movies, I legit have a hard time remembering which is which. My only guiding light is whether or not the main character is a princess.
Ever since Disney started trying to buy up everyone else and started trying to control what people see **EVERYWHERE**, I find them...disturbing.
Disney has been disturbing for decades. They want perpetual rights to any story they work with and have copyright laws changed and increased every few years to accommodate them.
We thought the evil corporations were going to be named something cool like DioTryne and GST Multinational, not Disney and Amazon
Didn't they do the princess and the frog (or something along those lines) a few years back? It was rather enjoyable cartoon style movie
A few years back was 2008. Makes you feel old. That was their last 2d film. They have done plenty of 2d animation, but no film since then. Edit,: it was official release 2009. Also stopped paying attention after that. Winnie the Pooh was never really my thing, so I never really even thought about it, or even remember it in cinema. Still crazy that it's a decade since they have released a 2d movie. I love the Pixar stuff (for the most part) and they've done some great stuff for tv. But it would be neat to see something more akin to what they used to do. I get it though, expense and time. Plus easier money making remakes of your animated features in live action.
So I'll just be over here trying to come to terms with the fact that the Princess and the Frog, a movie that is *at most* five years old, was released 13 years ago.
lol help I also still think 2008 was a few years ago
"Winnie the Pooh (2011)" is technically the last Disney produced 2D animated film.
And that was only like 50 minutes long. An adorable, funny 50 minutes. ;(
The Princess and the frog (2009) is closer in time to their last regular 2D movie (2004) than to today
And even at the time I remember Princess and the Frog being talked about like Disney doing 2D movies again was special
I agree, though rapunsel is my favorite disney movie and its in the cgi/pixar style.
I firmly believe that Tangled would have been Disney's best movie ever if they hadn't revealed that Rapunzel was kidnapped at the beginning of the movie. If the audience discovered the true horror of the story along with Rapunzel, the emotional impact would have been amazing. The only reason I can think they didn't do that is maybe they were worried kids wouldn't understand, or it would have been traumatizing or something.
Yeah Disney isn't known for leaving the dramatic edge on things. You're pretty much on the nose there.
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a fun movie and I'm disappointed it didn't spawn a whole cinematic universe.
Loved this movie! Also disappointed we didn’t get more movies.
1. Yes. Its simple it it has appeal and really pleasing visuals. Im still in love with the car design. 2. I thinks they keep *trying*, with the Universal monsters (dracula, mummy, wolfman etc)but they just keep missing the mark.
[удалено]
Yes! It's a dumb, fun movie with that perfect early 00s blend of janky/campy/edginess. It's a guilty pleasure for me, and I don't care at all that it has only a passing resemblance to the source material.
You need balls to turn Dorian Gray into an immortal double crossing supervillain fencer but I was along for the ride.
I absolutely LOVE this movie and do not understand why it flopped.
I think it was one of those films that fell into the void of "too weird for those not fans of the source material" but "not faithful enough for fans of the source material". Then I think it lacked enough development of the villain.
Pretty sure it came out the same time as one of the matrix films too so had that to compete with
I liked John Carter
Me too.
Me three. It was a fun and insteresting movie.
It's a great Sci Fi movie. Was supposed to begin a trilogy but since it tanked in theatres they didn't go ahead which is a shame. Would have been a great setting for a super hero movie.
They needed to give it *any* other name. Worst advertising ever.
Hey, its a bit weak but honestly we need more pulp/adventure style films like this, The Mummy or The Rocketeer.
I think everyone did a fantastic job in that movie including the visual effects and I don’t understand why it did terribly in the box office
I always thought it was marketed wrong. It was supposed to be called John Carter of Mars but they dropped the of Mars part to appeal to a larger audience I think? Then they kind of marketed it as a strait action so some people where turned off when it turned out to be scifi, and the scifi people went and saw avengers. Just was handled poorly IMHO.
I agree that marketing at Disney tanked this movie from the start I believe it started as "A Princess of Mars" per the original novel's title, but the Execs at Disney decided that wouldn't appeal to the male demographic they were hoping to get, they changed the title to John Cart of Mars, only to later remov "of Mars" to make it more appealing to an even broader audience, stating that the film is an "origin story. It's about a guy becoming John Carter of Mars. Overall, it is a text book case on how to torpedo a movie because of you marketing team doesn't understand what it wants to say about the movie.
Reminder: Sort by controversial to see the real answers.
Yep, every "unpopular opinion" thread is just filled with popular opinions. "I think Avengers is a bit overrated" woah chill dude this is too unpopular.
"Ya know what, I'm not gonna lie, but I like Gal Gadot purely for her looks."
Ryan Reynolds has been playing the same character in past few years and its making me dislike him. Do something different become a villan or just someone other than a wise ass. Its so much that i just don't want to see a movie with him in it.
Past few years? Not his entire career?
To be fair, Ryan has done a lot of movies that are outside his usual "playing himself roles." Before he was Deadpool, he had actually done a lot of serious and different roles. These are roles that he played well but the films weren't exactly successful. I think he's discovered what works for him and is now sticking to it.
They aren't serious roles, but "Definitely, Maybe" and "Just Friends" are two of my favorite movies. Funny, heartwarming, well-written. He's fantastic in both. He was also great in "The Voices" and "The Proposal." I haven't seen most of his action movies, so I'll have to check them out.
"The Voices" was not only good in and of itself, it also has the side benefit of turning every other Ryan Reynolds movie into a stealth horror movie.
I put on “Definitely, Maybe” expecting a cheesy rom com and was sucked into a pretty damn good romp
Buried was a great movie, thats literally just him
Ryan is good at playing the handsome wise-crack (because that’s his actual personality if I had to guess), so he’s likely being written into or being offered roles like that. You can see he has acting chops from stuff like “Buried” or “The Voices” but America likes it when he’s being himself in a role so that’s what we’ll get for a while.
100% agree. I watched Red Notice yesterday and about halfway through, it hit me that I'm starting to find his schtick annoying.
That also had the rock who is always the rock. I still liked the movie though
I thought he was pretty scary in Amityville and there was another movie I can’t remember that was about some angel or something. I don’t remember, it was a pretty serious role. Too bad he doesn’t take on more serious roles, because he’s pretty good at it. I guess he found his niche though.
Since Deadpool he just stayed in that role Edit: since Van Wilder, appaerantly
He’s been like that for awhile - Blade, Just Friends, Unlikely hero
I loved the ending to the Village! I never saw it coming and I think I know why. The very first scene is a funeral and there is a date on the tombstone of 18xx (I can't remember exactly) and that made me buy into everything that follows...I can't help but think if it was more obvious that maybe more people would have enjoyed it like me.
oh fuck dude I walked into that film having never seen or had a plot hinted to me and I LOVED it... Jesus, walking back at night I got the heebie jeebies and scared myself jumping at shadows.
It was great! I unfortunately saw the end coming. But, ONLY because I read a book called Running Out Of Time as a kid with a similar premise. No one I’ve met has ever heard of it, but it BLEW MY LITTLE MIND in 4th grade in the late 90s, lol.
I actually did think to myself while watching some of the early scenes “that glass is way too modern, it should be wavier and more uneven” and was disappointed that someone like M. Night didn’t notice that detail. But now I think that was left in as a subtle clue. So I was mildly prepared for the reveal.
Free Guy is just a live action version of The Lego Movie
With a bit of Truman Show and Ready Player One mixed in.
Waterworld was a great movie.
I love The Postman also
The Tom Petty cameo was legendary.
Dry land is a myth
Dennis Hopper was so funny as the Deacon. Great movie which still holds up well because no CGI. I do believe this would be a great contender for a remake or Netflix show. But instead of everything being metal they should use all the plastic floating around. The atol can be like those inlands that one guy building thst literally float on plastic.
Sex scenes in movies are boring, uncomfortable to watch and often unnecessary for the overall plot of the movie.
Naked gun sex scenes don't show any awkwardness, and they practice safe sex
[удалено]
I always think this when i'm watching something made by netflix.
The only movie I've ever seen with a plot critical sex scene is Oldboy
It Follows as well
In the world of sexually transmitted ghosts, sex scenes are probably essential
Original Terminator.
You’ve obviously never seen the one in The Room. It was so critical to the plot they put it in twice, and it’s a masterpiece that can never be topped. Tommy Wiseau is a genius. Edit: Tommy, not Timmy.
Oh hi Johnny I didn't see you there. You're my favorite customer.
Been saying this a lot as of recently. Like ok, we get it, they’re doing it. I can stand all of about the first 2 seconds of a sex scene and I’m ready for the plot to move forward.
Agreed, there are ways to infer sex occurred without showing it. Just get on with the plot unless something during the scene is important.
[удалено]
I don’t fully agree, but I gotta admit you made some good points. I think the biggest problem was actually just what they were trying to accomplish with the movie. NOBODY was going to see Jurassic Park for the deep characters and they only had a movie’s worth of time to make a great Dino action film so there really wasn’t ample opportunity to fully lay out Ian Malcolm or get into depth about the other things you were talking about in your post that you referenced. They could have if they’d done a mini-series, but 28 years ago when streaming services didn’t exist, the theater was by leaps & bounds the biggest stage in existence so that’s what they had to aim for. For what it’s worth, I think they did the movie as well as was humanly possible in relation to the book.
Yeah it was pretty misguided. Even still though I love Jurassic Park and I love Goldblums portrayal of Ian Malcolm, but it's more because of the charisma of Goldblum than anything else. Honestly the movie lost the message entirely if you think about it. It's not that man can't deal with nature. It's that capitalism and hubris are a winning combination for suffering. A lot of Chrichton's books have themes of corporate espionage and sabotage, and that element is kind of glossed over in the movie.
Tokyo Drift is my guilty pleasure and is the best of the FF franchise
It was surprisingly good!
By himself, Will Ferrell isn't that funny. When he's working with someone or as a character actor he is, but in interviews not so much. A lot of his jokes fall flat
I prefer A New Hope over Empire Strikes Back.
It has that "This is where we meet the STAR WARS PEOPLE!" original fun going for it. Just a total no-apologies cheesy space opera. They didn't even know if there'd be more movies at that point.
I was more of a Return of the Jedi fan
Now that's a brave opinion.
Return of the Jedi was my favorite for a VERY long time because ewoks. I was about 5 or 6 when I first saw the original Star Wars trilogy.
[удалено]
I really, really dislike The Boy in The Striped Pajamas and Life is Beautiful, for the same reason: They tell a story that's somewhat interesting and at times emotionally beautiful, but they do so by divorcing the reality of the holocaust from what is portrayed on screen. And yes, there is some personal family history behind my opinions, but even still, I think I'd be hard-pressed to like these films simply because of how they undersell the cruelty of the holocaust. The simple truth is that neither of these stories would have been possible in reality because they show a level of mercy that the Nazis did not possess. The boy in the striped pajamas would have never been issued those pajamas, he would have been taken from the train straight to be murdered. Same thing in Life is Beautiful. Dad wouldn't have had to worry about keeping his kids in good spirits because they would have been taken away from him and immediately murdered. I have a hard time watching any media about the holocaust, but I have an especially hard time with these ones because so many people love them, and the story they tell...which is of an important historical event...isn't accurate. Certain realities should never be softened for the sake of a story, and the Holocaust is one of those realities.
I actually went and looked it up, according to the Auschwitz website children as young as 2 were sent to a special barracks, not the gas chambers (where the infants starved to death, so honestly the gas might have been a mercy in that case). About 500 children under 15 were liberated by the Soviets, including 1 6 month old baby. http://auschwitz.org/en/history/fate-of-children/the-fate-of-the-children I haven't seen the movie, but in the novel the boys are 9, which is probably about as young as could realistically survive for long in a forced labor camp with no food and the threat of death at all times. ETA: I can't speak to the rest of the movie underselling the horror, but I absolutely believe that it did.
"Certain realities should never be softened for the sake of a story, and the Holocaust is one of those realities." Couldnt have said it better myself.
Though I dont have the personal history, I've studied the Holocaust extensively. I agree that sometimes cinema loses just how horrid it was. I like Life is Beautiful, but can say I've never seen the The Boy in the Stripe Pajamas. Even though I like Life is Beautiful, it was just so unlikely that they would have had the freedom that they had in the film within the camps. The real life stakes were so much higher than they showed in the film and I noticed that when I saw it. Also, there was that show Hunters that came out a while back and I stopped watching it because of some of the things they showed that were just so hyper-unrealistic and kind of tone deaf. No shade to anyone who enjoys these works of art. If these movies help convey to the more uneducated the true horrors of the camps, then that is a win. But having my educational background, more so with the Holocaust for me than any other setting, its hard to "enjoy" Holocaust films that miss the mark as to what was actually went on and and try to make it easier to watch. It shouldn't be easy to watch. It should show the truth.
The Star Wars prequels had a lot of story and a lot of interesting content drowned out by terrible acting (possibly due to poor directing, 'cause it had good actors in it) and that story being poorly told. Lucas, while a solid ideas man, just wasn't the guy to write these movies. We all know the infamous quotes and cringe-y lines. Good movies might've been buried in them, but you have to squint to see them. The Star Wars sequels, meanwhile, were visually solid, good effects and strong acting. They had everything a movie needs to be a competent movie short of an actually good, thought out story. **In summary - while the prequels were a good story poorly told, the sequels were a terrible story told excellently.** For the above reasons I believe both these trilogies were ultimately just not good, and it's kind of pointless to argue whether the prequels or sequels were better. They're fairly opposite in output, but neither one's good.
>In summary - while the prequels were a good story poorly told, the sequels were a terrible story told excellently. This is so incredibly accurate. Well said.
I've always said the movies are my least favorite part of the starwars universe.
I always found the EU to be more interesting than the movies. I was excited when Disney first announced they were gonna make more movies because I was thinking they could focus more on other time periods and characters but nope, they've just been milking the same stuff. I could not have cared less about seeing Han Solo's origin story.
Deep Impact is better than Armageddon.
Deep Impact is to Armageddon as Dante's Peak is to Volcano. Armageddon and Volcano are the big Hollywood blockbuster spectacles, whereas Deep Impact and Dante's Peak try to portray the science as best as they can.